"What happens if I don’t flag my restricted content?"

On re-reading this clause, I'm getting a completely different impression about the IDV policy as an imperative. Perhaps someone could clear this up.

Everett says, "Resident can raise concerns directly with the landowner or with Linden Lab via the Abuse channel." But does not go on to imply any enforcement against that landowner, simply says, "Residents are morally, socially and legally responsible for their actions and content in Second Life. Clearly, any illegal activity or content will be investigated and appropriate action will be taken."

If there is no illegal activity taking place on that land, investigation will show that. If it happens that there are minors taking part in restricted content, then the landowner is "morally, socially and legally responsible". What the 'appropriate action' is would depend on age of participant consent, and likely on the participant's consent regardless of age. If you have nothing but consenting adults taking part in their freedom of expression and sexual lifestyles, then you are still morally, socially and legally responsible, and the 'appropriate action' would be no action at all.

However, this is the creepy part of the implication, if there is the involvement of non-consenting participants or participants below the age of consent on your land, that land would be protected from abuse complaints by the 'restricted' flag. This doesn't suggest that a landowner participating in IDV by flagging their parcel 'restricted' is no longer "morally, socially and legally responsible," only that they are not likely to be investigated for appropriate action because complaints will be unlikely.

Perhaps this is just another way to smoke out predators seeking children and the children who put themselves at risk by falsifying their identity. After all, I don't know many honest adults who don't object to risking their privacy or giving identity info away to data peddlers. I don't know many responsible adult businesses who would like to be ghetto-ized among nominally 'Mature' lands with a patently XXX label like 'Restricted'. So naturally it would be those who participate who should be under scrutiny.

What happens? They don't know and they won't say. It is creepier that way and that fear helps them cope with their dereliction of duty.

Just because Linden Lab says you are morally, socially, and legally responsible for something does not make it so.

The Spanish Inquisition.

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition...

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

I for one, didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

I did hear a rumor the policy would be enforced by Torquemada Linden...

What happens? You will be held morally, socially, and legally responsible, which is another way of saying, you will take the consequences. In other words, you take the responsibility for legal action taken against you, but doesn't say that they would be the one taking it, simply investigating.

You'll get shafted.

Based upon that Blog Dreck I actually DO expect a Spanish Inquisition

It's a claim of corruption of a minor for the most part, unless there are "active" things that rise to a higher level. It's not an unserious offense in most US states. I'm not sure what the situation is outside the US, but if a US parent raised this kind of claim through a local prosecutor, and the landowner was outside the US, my guess is that they would make a claim against LL, and LL would take recourse against the landowner for failing to flag.

If I am not home and two kids enter my house to screw on my bed, even if the front door is standing wide open it is not my social, moral, or legal responsibility.

Then you must be nobody. Because...


















Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

The Inquisiiiiiiiiiiition....ya ya ya.

yes, and I hope to remain one by not getting verified.

It's best to remember that nothing has really changed, and the odds of a litigious I-blame-you-but-not-me parent pressing charges against a land owner are exactly the same as they were before this.

I've heard of exactly zero cases of this over the past year. And besides, if someone is going to sue, why bother sue a land owner? What would you get? Not much. They will sue the Company, maaaybe the landowner, maybe an innocent bystander or two. Who knows?

My guess is that there might be some wrist slaps and maybe some content taken down, if there was ever a real issue. Much like a website might be shut down by its ISP temporarily.

Quoted for Probablility

Desmond, I wish you would publish a book with all your posts. I would buy one.

This really isn't so much about the individual landowners as LL's way of covering their ass by being able to show they are doing everything they can. As angry as it makes people, it's a damn smart move on their part. As SL continues to grow and get more media exposure, I would expect lawsuits to eventually start trickling in more and more.

But why SL, versus any other site on the Internet? This is what doesn't make any sense.

Dearly Darlings,

I was wondering when the comfy chair and pillow where coming.

You all have a lovely afternoon.

Ever Yours,

Mrs. showdog Tiger

How'd this thread turn into a spam-magnet?

I think most of you missed a point here. If you're unflagged and unverified guests are behaving legally, no matter how explicitly raunchy and graphically hardcore their expression is, if they can't be prosecuted for it, no action would need be taken.

On the other hand, if you're flagged and therefore populated with verified guests, truly illegal action isn't likely to be reported. So what kind of the community would this appeal to?

Well said, but I disagree that lawsuits are the problem here. My concern is that content will be removed and accounts will be disabled simply as a result of an in-world AR, justified or not, well-intended or not. SL is too big, and problem reports too numerous, for thoughtful consideration to be given to each and every individual circumstance. Sensible case-by-case abuse resolution just doesn't scale, and I fear these types of issues will be handled in the most expeditious (for LL) manner. ARs related to questionable content or activities on non-restricted land might become the ultimate griefing tool, by virtue of the simple fact that nobody can take the time to investigate each AR properly.

And you know what a pain that will be, you can't torquemada anything.

I think this is Linden Labs deciding that since it is impossible for them to police their servers, they'll just put the blame on us when a child is found to be accessing adult content. I've been talking to Bakerstreet Writer about it, and while I don't believe it is as big of a deal as he seems to, it worries me that in the end they seem to be opening the floodgates to minors accessing this place with a wink and then telling us to make sure we don't corrupt them.

Yep, that about sums it up.

The idea that individual residents who have chosen to play/work/reside on a "Mature" sim should be required to label each sub-parcel as Mature, is completely illogical. And isn't the word "Mature" self-explanatory enough???

If a sim is designated "Mature" under LL's designation system, then it is LL's responsibility to enforce that rating for the entire sim.